I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

Has Rush Limbaugh Finally Reached The End Of The Road?

Like him or hate him, there is no disputing that Rush Limbaugh’s very special brand of mixing right-wing politics with his flare for entertainment has produced one of the most successful radio programs in the medium’s long history.

Whatever the burning political question of the day, millions of Americans have relished the opportunity to tune into Rush’s program, knowing that he would quickly take that hot potato, throw a few gallons of verbal kerosene into the mix and elevate the matter into a five alarm fire with a just a few well-chosen words spoken in the style only Rush Limbaugh could produce.

Until now…

At long last, it appears that Rush Limbaugh has run out of steam.

I have to acknowledge that I have sensed Rush getting by on fumes for some time now (yes, I tune into his show from time to time to enjoy his broadcasting skills if not his message). However, it was only recently that the world of Limbaugh crossed that thin red line from partially serious to total self-parody and audience deception—a line crossed from which there is often no return.

It happened on the occasion of Stephen Colbert’s appointment to fill David Letterman’s soon to be vacated chair on the CBSCBS late-night set.

By using this occasion to create a political narrative designed to stir up his listeners, Limbaugh telegraphed to his loyal followers that he is now dependent upon feeding fully faux political nonsense that his audience instinctively—or explicitly—knows is a bunch of baloney.

Rush Limbaugh – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

To be sure, this is hardly the first time Limbaugh has fed his audience a diet of twisted information and bizarre, conspiratorial memes. However, it may well be the first time that he attempted to shove a diet down the throats of any semi-rational listeners still living in the real world made up of nonsense that even his most loyal listener could not possibly swallow.

That’s a problem for Rush.

A show like Limbaugh’s is wholly reliant on his listeners’ willingness to believe—or suspend belief—no matter how ‘out there’ their guru’s arguments may be. While it is one thing for me to sneer at much of what Limbaugh may present, it is quite another when he attempts to sell his loyal audience on stuff they already know, through personal experience, to be false and fraudulent hokum.

Upon hearing the news of Colbert’s new gig, Limbaugh pronounced— as only Limbaugh can pronounce—

“CBS has just declared war on the heartland of America. No longer is comedy going to be a covert assault on traditional American values, conservatism. Now it’s just wide out in the open. What this hire means is a redefinition of what is funny, and a redefinition of what is comedy. They’re blowing up the 11:30 format… they hired a partisan, so-called comedian, to run a comedy show.”

Not quite satisfied with his initial declaration, Limbaugh returned to the subject in a later program, commenting further on CBS’s decision to hire Colbert—

“It clearly indicates that the people making this decision have chosen to write off a portion of the country, that they don’t care if a portion of the country watches or not.”

Rush has it right on his last statement.

Indeed, the people who make decisions at television networks have chosen to write off a portion of the country—a decision that was made for them a very long time ago.

However, it has never had anything to do with making choices of audience based on anything even resembling politics and has always had everything to do with blowing off anyone older than 49 years of age because these older folks are poison to advertisers. In other words, the networks are clearly writing off those in ‘the heartland’ if they’ve reached 50 years old—just as they’ve written off folks in this demo in every other nook and cranny of America.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

We all find at some point in our careers, it’s time for ones ship to sail off into the sunset and move on to another phase of life. David Letterman is smart enough to know when it’s time to cruise and graciously retire. Unfortunately for Mr Limbaugh, he seems to not have that same instinct. Perhaps it’s time for him to sail on down the line as well… instead of trying to make the steamroller he rides on float. Sailing is far better than drowning. He’s half way under already.

That time for David Letterman was back when Jay Leno got the job he wanted … and I think it’s unfortunate for all of us that Letterman was not smart enough to retire then. His stint on the Tomorrow show was the peak of his career.

Well now, you’re 25 years late. Rush was declared dead and buried for years. Yet his influence continues to grow. He has not yet reached his peak, let alone topped out. Rush is demonstrably wiser than you, wealthier than you and more heroic than you. He’s virtually deaf running a talk radio show. Why he even got you to dedicate a precious column to him.

I think you’ve got this all wrong, Rick. I don’t think the advertisers had an adequate opportunity to assess the abilities of the snarky, squirm-humor dominated, cynical, self-centered Stephen Colbert to maintain a late night audience (which I believe is significantly different than Colbert’s current audience).

If you think that CBS is trying to line up the next Jimmy Fallon, then think again. Fallon has always been funny first while he occasionally shows his fawning admiration of all things Obama. He is also a talented musician, writer, comedian, and impressionist. Jimmy Kimmel is a talented goofball who is, more often than not, politically neutral.

Colbert, on the other hand, drips with pseudo-intellectual hatred for the right which is generally, as Rush is indicating, what makes up a great deal of the heartland of America. Colbert has demonstrated very little of the talent that Fallon and Kimmel have to get people laughing at simple, humorous jokes.

We’ll quickly find out that CBS will lose even more ground to Kimmel and Fallon. I don’t think advertisers, no matter how they’ve been told about how Colbert’s demographic appeal skews, will be all that happy with the results.

I give it 3 months. I don’t know anybody who is interested in Colbert being successful at this.

Who advertised for Ronan Farrow? Whoever authorized putting money into that show should have been fired by the company. Same for whoever is stupid enough to finance Colbert. The only company dumb enough would probably be Immelt’s GE.

Another problem could be Rush will not make the transition form talk radio to today modem media based on mobile devices and social media. I wonder if the younger end of demo would want spend four hours listening to broadcast radio or interact with others on Facebook. Mr lost me around 2–5 when he mixed is entertainment with anti-immigrant, anti-trade and big government ,populism and managed to abandon principals of Regan’s idea of limited government. I eventually left the republican party, and conservatism for more libertarian ideas in 2012.

For a guy with no audience, he certainly manages to inflame the hemorrhoids of thousands of liberals on an astoundingly regular basis. Even Dick Cavett was let out of his nursing home to comment. (Its almost like you guys are on his marketing payroll!)

“Limbaugh expects us to believe that CBS is willing to throw all that money out the window to make a political statement.” Oh look. Another jealous Obama publicist attempting satire. You go girl. Now off to the Barry’s bathhouse, to take a pajama selfie with your 3 readers.

Mr. Unger proves once again, as he does quite often on Fox News as a contributor, that ignorance is bliss. Is Mr. Ungar completely unaware that Rush Limbaugh is the author two best selling children’s books? Mr. Limbaugh is positioned to grow a new audience into the coveted demographic. Moreover, he characters in the books like Liberty the horse and Rush Revere promise to become franchises in their own right. Viva La Limbaugh!

My only problem with the networks hate older people and older people can’t find anything to watch hypothesis is there is so much really good stuff to watch on television these days staring us old farts.

I have trouble believing The Good Wive and Downton Abbey are for the young people. NCIS doesn’t strike me as youth oriented, not with Mark Harmon as the lead (and the what I can only guess is the more youth-oriented version, NCIS: Los Angeles, doesn’t seem to do anywhere near as well). I have trouble seeing The Middle as a show designed to draw a young crowd, particularly given how it makes fun of teenagers. Person of Interest, CSI, Criminal Minds, and The Blacklist all have leads who are either over 50 or darn close to it. James Spader was young and hip back when *I* was young and hip, but Reagan was President then, too. Blue Bloods is headed by Tom Selleck, who has got to be close to 70 if he’s a day, I don’t care how much hair dye the make up artist uses. Foyle’s War is set in WWII and the lead is a guy in his mid sixties, hardly a pitch for a younger audience.

If the networks hate us old folks so much, why are there so many programs clearly aimed at us?

Anyway, I was surprised to hear Rush was still broadcasting. Didn’t he go to prison or something for drug use?

Sorry Holly, it’s BS. Rush has a bigger, more loyal following on an ‘outdated’ media format in the middle of the day, than Colbert has on cable television just after prime time. I think he’ll be okay. News of his demise is greatly exaggerated. How do you keep a liberal in suspense? Have Rick Ungar write a predictive article on subjects and dynamics he doesn’t care to understand. You know what they say about wishing in one hand and….

This is just liberal rant number 7, “Rush Limbaugh has run out of juice”, and it barely deserves a reply. Rush is doing just fine, thank you, and his point about Colbert is valid whatever the demographics, and anyway a demographic of 39 on cable is going to be a demographic of 49 on broadcast.

Anyway nobody really knows what it’s going to look like if Colbert tries to play himself – I hope his writers can handle it!

How is his point valid? If the entire reason he got the job is because he has a large young audience, then obviously there are people who want to hear what he has to say. Why does it have to be some giant conspiracy where a network is shoving their ideology down our throats? So are everyone one of his viewers brainwashed, or do they possibly agree with and want to hear his views? Like Rick said, the network picked somebody who is going to make the advertisers happy, plain and simple. Why will it make the advertisers happy? Because young people like him, sorry he doesn’t reflect your values.

This piece may be completely valid; I have no comment on that issue. However, I did note that a couple of changes to the last paragraph fully describe someone else who has “Reached the End of the Road.”

Barack Obama ‘works’ when he can fire up his audience with red-hot ideology designed to bring out the anger of his listeners. But no politician succeeds when they try to stupidly pull the wool over the very listeners who have been loyal—and Obama’s effort to politicize the (pick an issue) was just that.

(Then again, Colbert is not the first so-called entertainer to cross the line. The entire staff of MSNBC lie with every word they speak on the air, so much so that even my leftist friends can no longer watch that network.)

As I read through the comments, I can’t help but ask, why? Why do people still embrace Limbaugh ? I know many republican conservatives that don’t listen to him because frankly, what does he offer to you other than hating and distrusting people? He feeds anger… and he perpetuates it. I enjoy listening to people who make me laugh or think. There is nothing satirical about Limbaugh. When the mood strikes, he and his fans call him “entertainment”… but I suppose it’s all about what one finds entertaining. He has always gottent he ratings he has becasue he collects people who are angry or listen becasue they want to be angry at him… With him, or against him…people still listen. THAT is the only reason is is still around. THAT is what sells ads. Controversy. And he knows how to create it. From my perspective, calling out a network for hiring a comedic entertainer to replace another comedic entertainer, certainly isn’t tearing at the heart of America… But the format of a political talk show that spoon feeds a very one sided and negative picture constantly, surely doesn’t exactly make for a strong indivisible Union…. But hey folks, what ever floats your boat. Just don’t say comedy is ruining America. Actually, it might be one of the only sane things left in the land of television, and “news” for sale and ratings.

What Mr. Ungar doesn’t have the tiniest clue about, is that real Rush listeners do in fact see through what is intended to tongue and cheek and pick up on it right away. Rush says these things to get the surface minded folks like Mr. Ungar, but more typically the rabid leftist media to bite on the ridiculousness he throws out like chum in the water trying to lure sharks.

Nearly all of the major networks have long ago not only abandoned traditional America but rubs immorality and debauchery in the American TV watchers face. Rush listeners already know this and can see the blatant bias in nearly every corner of the alphabet networks.

Rush listeners could not give a whit about Colbert, only foolish children would watch his Comedy central show anyway. That demographic is completely worthless in the grand scheme compared to productive, intelligent people.

Rush just gave Colbert the best advertising he could have, reaching far more people than any advertising CBS could do. As people like Mr. Ungar pick up and run with that chum Rush throws out, not only does the subject of Rush’s jest or ridicule get more attention, but Rush is infinitely elevated to greater exposure.

The answer to your question: no, but you might have. Thanks for wasting my time by telling me what I already know about advertising and not having the courage to address Rush’s point. By the by, your boy Colburn, 6 months and out.

Yeah, Rick, if you said actually heard what Rush said you would know that your version of what he said is wrong and that he predicted that the leftist hive mind would say precisely what you have recited. He said he didn’t care much about Colbert one way or the other, but that people asked him what he thought. He said Colbert makes his living mocking a childish leftist stereotype of what a “right winger” is supposed to be among the leftist bien pensents: racist (of course!), stupid, ignorant and arrogant. That in doing so he mocks at least half of Americans, slanders them, insults them. And that in choosing Colbert to replace Letterman, CBS has shown its solidarity with this disdain for middle America.

Which is true. Which his listeners understand. Which leftist talking parrots like you are not interested in understanding.

Other than that, pal, you’re right on the money! Keep up the deep thinking!

Seems Mr Limbaugh’s bosses have considerably more faith in his appeal than you do, Rick….and obviously he’s worth one hell of a lot more to them than you are to Forbes (or most of us for that matter). $50 mil a year is a pretty healthy salary. And contrary to a ton of numbers fudging and outright lies from left leaning hacks his numbers are stronger than ever.

The thing with “political views” people – is they will take ANY given situation, and attempt to make it a radicalized political venture. As to Mr. Limbaugh jumping the shark, in regard to the Colbert television show move, it’s really nothing new. It may, however, be time for him to move on, and let another conservative newcomer take the reins. While he is still head strong, he appears to be more of a curmudgeon these days – even if you agree with what he says, nobody likes to be around a crusty old guy.

I appreciate you checking in for more stories and I must apologize. I’m not on vacation but was unusually busy during the past month with television and radio. As a result, I was a bit lazy on my column and did not do much. I’m going to try and write more frequently in May. I typically put up a few stories a week-not on a schedule per se, but typically I’m pretty regular.

Hear, hear! Did someone say that his daily audience is about 1000x yours? Take your socialist drivel over to your European “high-brow” friends… Both of them. CBS’s decisions make it the weakest balance sheet of the major three… By far!

Clearly, the Court’s majority has it correct when it notes that offering up prayers at a government function does not violate the Establishment Clause of our Constitution. Indeed, we know that the Founders opened some of their most critical and historic gatherings with a prayer and that the very first Congress made the decision to create an office of the Chaplain just days after approving the language of the First Amendment (although the guidelines established by Congress require the chaplain to avoid provocative prayers favoring one religion over another.)

Usually I agree with you, Rick, but I’ve got to disagree with the logic here. Suppose I said instead:

Clearly, the Court’s majority has it correct when it notes that holding slaves does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution. Indeed, we know that the Founders owned slaves and that the very first Congress made the decision to count slaves as only 3/5 of a person when approving the language of the Constitution.

Though structured identically, it doesn’t really carry the weight you had hoped yours did when you made your argument.

People can pray in private, in church, in their homes, and in gatherings of like-minded individuals. There is no reason to open government functions with petitions to religious figures and gods. It is tantamount to establishment and violates the first amendment, regardless of any tortured rationale to make it appear that it doesn’t.

Of course, TV networks have written off viewers over 50 for decades — except when it comes to news broadcasts. The network nightly news conssistently draw older audiences — and the vast majority of advertising on the evening newscasts are targeted directly at aging Baby Boomers — mostly ads from the phamaceutical industry.

Then there is Fox News Channel, whose audience is the oldest of any TV network — broadcast or cable. According to the A.C. Nielsen ratings service, the conservative-leaning Fox News viewership has a median age of 68 — and getting older. That all-important 18-49 demo — far more liberal then the older conservative viewers of Fox — refuse to watch it and avoid that network like the plague.

But that’s not all: Fox News’ audience is also the whitest — a whopping 88 percent, according to Nielsen — and is most heavily concentrated in the Deep South.

That’s pretty much the same audience as Rush Limbaugh’s show, with one major difference: Limbaugh’s audience is also overwhelmingly male — a staggering 89 percent.

In other words, Rush Limbaugh is essentially “preaching to the choir” — a choir of increasingly geriatric conservative white males, who are a rapidly-shrinking minority of the overall U.S. population as the country moves inexorably toward a nonwhite majority by the middle of this century, according to the Census Bureau.

One wonders how much longer can Clear Channel Communications, which owns Limbaugh’s syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, can continue to put up with his money-losing program and his $400 million-a-year contract?